A desperate childless couple steal a baby from a family
with quintuplets, but two escaped convicts and a ruthless bounty hunter
complicate things.

Does
the concept contain an intriguing ironic contradiction?

Hi tries to goes straight by kidnapping a baby.

Is this a story anyone can identify with, projected onto
a bigger canvas, with higher stakes?

The urge to have a family at all costs, combined with the
fear of family commitment, get pushed to absurd extremes.

Story Fundamentals: Will this concept generate a
strong story?

Is the
concept simple enough to spend more time on character than plot?

Not really.It’s pretty complicated.The first ten minutes is all narrated montage.

Is
there one character that the audience will choose to be their “hero”?

Hi.

Does
the story follow the progress of the hero’s problem, not the hero’s daily
life?

For instance, when it starts
to cut away to Smalls, it uses the excuse of a dream in which Hi conjures up
Smalls as a projection of his guilt, allowing this second storyline to become
an extension of the one problem.

Does
the story present a unique relationship?

The couple are an ex-con and ex-cop.

Is at
least one actual human being opposed to what the hero is doing?

Lots of them.

Does
this challenge represent the hero’s greatest hope and/or greatest fear and/or
an ironic answer to the hero’s question?

Greatest hope (have a family) and
greatest fear (return to crime).

Does
something inside the hero have a particularly volatile reaction to the
challenge?

His first instinct when things go
wrong is to rob another convenience store.

Does
this challenge become something that is the not just hard for the hero to do (an obstacle) but hard for the hero
to want to do (a conflict)?

They’re good people, and they don’t
want to steal a baby.

In the
end, is the hero the only one who can solve the problem?

Yes.

Does
the hero permanently transform the situation and vice versa?

He finds out what family really means
and matures.

The
Hook: Will this be marketable and generate word of mouth?

Does
the story satisfy the basic human urges that get people to buy and recommend
this genre?

Lots of big laughs, such as the big
chase scene.

Does
this story show us at least one image we haven’t seen before (that can be
used to promote the final product)?

The five babies, the bounty hunter,
the prison escape, etc.

Is
there at least one “Holy Crap!” scene (to create word of mouth)?

The prison escape, the baby on the
roof of the car, etc.

Does
the story contain a surprise that is not obvious from the beginning?

The escapees taking the baby, etc.

Is the
story marketable without revealing the surprise?

Yes.

Is the
conflict compelling and ironic both before and after the surprise?

Yes.

PART
#2: CHARACTER 20/22

Believe:
Do we recognize the hero as a human being?

Does
the hero have a moment of humanity early on? (A funny, or kind, or oddball,
or out-of-character, or comically vain, or unique-but-universal “I thought I
was the only one who did that!” moment?)

Is the
hero defined by ongoing actions and attitudes, not by backstory?

Despite all that opening narration, we
know very little backstory, just current actions.

Does
the hero have a well-defined public identity?

The no-good convenience store robber.

Does
the surface characterization ironically contrast with a hidden interior self?

The sweet do-gooder husband.

Does
the hero have a consistent metaphor family (drawn from his or her job,
background, or developmental state)?

Ambition: cowboy: “See, I come from a
long line of frontiersmen and outdoor types” “Her insides were a rocky place
where my seed could find no purchase.” “I preminisced no return of the salad
days.” “Even my job seemed as dry and bitter as the prairie
wind.”

Does
the hero have a default personality trait?

Mild, underreacting, put-upon

Does
the hero have a default argument tactic?

Folds quickly

Is the
hero’s primary motivation for tackling this challenge strong, simple, and
revealed early on?

Get his wife a baby.

Care:
Do we feel for the hero?

Does
the hero start out with a shortsighted or wrongheaded philosophy (or accept a
false piece of advice early on)?

Accepts bad advice from Gale:
“Sometimes your career (crime) has to come before family.”

Does
the hero have a false or shortsighted goal in the first half?

Raise Nathan Jr. as their own.

Does
the hero have an open fear or anxiety about his or her future, as well as a
hidden, private fear?

Open: Going back to jail.Hidden: That he’ll be a bad dad.

Is the
hero physically and emotionally vulnerable?

Yes.

Does
the hero have at least one untenable great flaw we empathize with? (but…)

Criminal tendency, desire to take the
easy path, perhaps a secret wish to return to jail.As the brothers say, “Either way we’ll be set for life.”

Invest:
Can we trust the hero to tackle this challenge?

…Is that great flaw (ironically) the natural
flip-side of a great strength we admire?

Not really the flip side: he’s loving
and totally dedicated to Ed’s happiness.

Is the
hero curious?

Somewhat.

Is the
hero generally resourceful?

Somewhat.

Does
the hero have rules he or she lives by (either stated or implied)?

He thinks he does (he has vague
notions about what it means to be a man) but in reality he gets pulled in
different directions and talked out of things easily.

Is the
hero surrounded by people who sorely lack his or her most valuable quality?

Most lack his inclination to fly right
(even Ed and her sister and brother-in-law).He’s the ex-con, but everybody has a little larceny in
their heart (although, like him, everybody is won over by Nathan Jr.)

…And
is the hero willing to let them know that, subtly or directly?

No, he’s reluctant to criticize

Is the
hero already doing something active when we first meet him or her?

Yes, he’s pursuing Ed as much as he
can during their brief encounters.

Does the
hero have (or claim) decision-making authority?

Yes.

Does
the hero use pre-established special skills from his or her past to solve
problems (rather than doing what anybody would do)?

Armed robbery, which he resorts to
again and again.

PART
#3: STRUCTURE (If the story is about the solving of a large problem) 19/21

1st
Quarter: Is the challenge laid out in the first quarter?

When
the story begins, is the hero becoming increasingly irritated about his or
her longstanding social problem (while still in denial about an internal
flaw)?

Tired of going back to prison, drawn
to Ed.

Does
this problem become undeniable due to a social humiliation at the beginning
of the story?

Keeps getting sent back, finds out
they’re infertile.

Does
the hero discover an intimidating opportunity to fix the problem?

They hear about the Arizona
quintuplets.

Does
the hero hesitate until the stakes are raised?

Not that we see.They go for it.

Does the hero commit to pursuing the opportunity by the
end of the first quarter?

They take the kid.

2nd
Quarter: Does the hero try the easy way in the second quarter?

Does
the hero’s pursuit of the opportunity quickly lead to an unforeseen conflict
with another person?

The brothers escape prison.

Does
the hero try the easy way throughout the second quarter?

They lie to the brothers.

Does
the hero have a little fun and get excited about the possibility of success?

They love having the kid, but they
never get excited about the possibility of success.They’re pretty worried the whole time.

Does the
easy way lead to a big crash around the midpoint, resulting in the loss of a
safe space and/or sheltering relationship?

Several: The in-laws come over. They
have lots of questions about Jr. Hi punches out his boss for suggesting wife
swapping. Hi steals some Huggies and some money, which leads to lots of
complications with cops, dogs, and an armed clerk. The in-law confronts Hi
and demands the baby, the brothers take the baby. Hi loses his job and his
baby and his house gets trashed.

3rd
Quarter: Does the hero try the hard way in the third quarter?

Does
the hero try the hard way from this point on?

They take off to get their baby back.

Does
the hero find out who his or her real friends and real enemies are?

The brothers and the brother-in-law
turn on Hi.

Do the
stakes, pace, and motivation all escalate at this point?

Yes.

Does
the hero learn from mistakes in a painful way?

They realize it was wrong to take the
baby.

Does a
further setback lead to a spiritual crisis?

They decide to split up after all this
is over.

4th
Quarter: Does the challenge climax in the fourth quarter?

Does
the hero adopt a corrected philosophy after the spiritual crisis?

“You were right and I was wrong. We
got a family here and I’m gonna start acting responsibly.

After
that crisis, does the hero finally commit to pursuing a corrected goal, which
still seems far away?

Save the baby, then return him.

Before
the final quarter of the story begins, (if not long before) has your hero
switched to being proactive, instead of reactive?

They lock and load and hit the road.

Despite
these proactive steps, is the timeline unexpectedly moved up, forcing the
hero to improvise for the finale?

Leonard Smalls shows up.

Do all
strands of the story and most of the characters come together for the
climactic confrontation?

Pretty much.

Does
the hero’s inner struggle climax shortly after (or possible at the same time
as) his or her outer struggle?

Yes, after Smalls is dead, they hash
out their relationship issues with Nathan Arizona.

Is
there an epilogue/ aftermath/ denouement in which the challenge is finally
resolved (or succumbed to), and we see how much the hero has changed (possibly
through reversible behavior)

They send
gifts to Nathan Jr. as he grows up.Maybe they’re able to have kids, or maybe that’s just a dream.

PART
#4: SCENEWORK 20/20 (During Hi and Ed’s first night with Junior, brothers
Gale and Evelle show up having just escaped from jail, and begin to suspect
the truth)

The
Set-Up: Does this scene begin with the essential elements it needs?

Were
tense and/or hopeful (and usually false) expectations for this interaction
established beforehand?

Ed just made him promise,“Everything
decent and normal from here on out.” When they first knock at the door, Ed
and Hi fear that it’s the police and load a gun.

Does
the scene eliminate small talk and repeated beats by cutting out the
beginning (or possibly even the middle)?

Hi greets them before Ed comes in, so
that we don’t have to hear that twice.

Is
this an intimidating setting that keeps characters active?

All sorts of clues in the room give
away their lies.

Is one
of the scene partners not planning to have this conversation (and quite
possibly has something better to do)?

Ed and Hi just want to sleep.

Is
there at least one non-plot element complicating the scene?

They tunneled through a sewer, so they
stink to high heaven.

Does
the scene establish its own mini-ticking-clock (if only through subconscious
anticipation)?

They want to get the kids down

The
Conflict: Do the conflicts play out in a lively manner?

Does this scene both advance the plot and reveal
character through emotional reactions?

Very much so. Hi feels humiliated by
the brothers’ ribbing, Ed has her worst fears about Hi confirmed

Does
the audience have (or develop) a rooting interest in this scene (which may
sometimes shift)?

We mostly side with Ed, but we’re very
sympathetic to Hi’s dilemma.

Are
two agendas genuinely clashing (rather than merely two personalities)?

The brothers demand to stay, Ed
demands they go.

Does
the scene have both a surface conflict and a suppressed conflict (one of
which is the primary conflict in this scene)?

Surface: Can they stay? Suppressed: Is
Hi going to have to change for his family? Is he going to stay out of jail?

Is the
suppressed conflict (which may or may not come to the surface) implied
through subtext (and/or called out by the other character)?

See above.

Are
the characters cagy (or in denial) about their own feelings?

Ed uses the baby as an excuse to kick
them out.

Do
characters use verbal tricks and traps to get what they want, not just direct
confrontation?

Gale traps them into lying about where
the baby came from, traps Hi into letting them stay by ribbing him.

Is
there re-blocking, including literal push and pull between the scene partners
(often resulting in just one touch)?

Hi hug Evelle, then playfully slaps
Gale, then puts an arm around Evelle, then goes and puts an arm around Ed
instead.

Are
objects given or taken, representing larger values?

Just barely: Evelle paws through their
M&M’s while talking about going through the sewage.

The
Outcome: Does this scene change the story going forward?

As a
result of this scene, does at least one of the scene partners end up doing
something that he or she didn’t intend to do when the scene began?

Hi lets them stay.

Does
the outcome of the scene ironically reverse (and/or ironically fulfill) the
original intention?

They were afraid it would be someone
who wanted to send them to prison, but it was friends, but the friends also
seem destined to send them back.

Are
previously-asked questions answered and new questions posed?

Previous: Where are the brothers
going? New: What will Gale do with his suspicions about the baby?

Does
the scene cut out early, on a question (possibly to be answered instantly by
the circumstances of the next scene)?

“Got you on a pretty short leash,
doesn’t she, Hi?”

Is the
audience left with a growing hope and/or fear for what might happen next?
(Not just in the next scene, but generally)

We are now filled with dread. We’re
sure that these guys will bring disaster to the house.

PART
#5: DIALOGUE 14/16

Empathetic:
Is the dialogue true to human nature?

Does
the writing demonstrate empathy for all of the characters?

Very much so.Jr. brings out everybody’s vulnerabilities.

Does
each of the characters, including the hero, have a limited perspective?

Very much so.Hi’s humble voiceover is more about
what he doesn’t know than what he does know.

Do the
characters consciously and unconsciously prioritize their own wants, rather
than the wants of others?

Very much so.

Are
the characters resistant to openly admitting their feelings (to others and
even to themselves)?

Very much so.

Do the
characters avoid saying things they wouldn’t say and doing things they
wouldn’t do?

Hi is very mealy-mouthed.

Do the
characters interrupt each other often?

Yes. Hi never gets to finish a
sentence.

Specific: Is the dialogue specific to this world
and each personality?

Does
the dialogue capture the jargon and tradecraft of the profession and/or
setting?

Yes. “We released
ourselves on our own recognizance.”Committing crimes with an unloaded gun because the sentences are so
much shorter, banks putting in paint packets, etc.

Are
there additional characters with distinct metaphor families, default
personality traits, and default argument strategies from the hero’s?

Difficult:
Is the meaning of the story derived from a fundamental moral dilemma?

Can
the overall theme be stated in the form of an irreconcilable good vs. good
(or evil vs. evil) dilemma?

Settle for a meager legal life vs.
achieving a better life through extra-legal means.

Is a
thematic question asked out loud (or clearly implied) in the first half, and
left open?

He asks us, “Now I don’t know where
you come down on the incarceration question, whether it’s for rehabilitation
or revenge…”

Do the
characters consistently have to choose between goods, or between evils,
instead of choosing between good and evil?

Put fugitives out of your house in the
rain?Swap wives to keep your
job?

Grounded:
Do the stakes ring true to the world of the audience?

Does
the story reflect the way the world works?

No. This follows the rules of a
folk-ballad (it’s easy to break into the rich man’s house, and then he
forgives them when he finds out they’ve taken his kid, and even takes an
interest in saving their marriage! Certainly, Smalls, too, is very
unrealistic.)

Does
the story have something authentic to say about this type of setting (Is it
based more on observations of this type of setting than ideas about it)?

There’s lots of good Southwest oddity,
such as watching the sunset from deck chairs, various state laws, etc.

Does
the story include twinges of real life national pain?

Very much so. JFK, Nixon and Reagan
are all name checked. “I tried to stand up and fly straight, but it wasn’t
easy with that sumbitch Reagan in the White House. I dunno, they say he’s a
decent man, so… maybe his advisors are confused.”

Are
these issues and the overall dilemma addressed in a way that avoids moral
hypocrisy?

Yes.Mr. Arizona isn’t turned into a monster in order to
justify the kidnapping, for instance.

Do all
of the actions have real consequences?

Yes and no.It makes sense that the whole thing unravels so quickly,
but it’s crazy that they face no consequences for the kidnapping (or for
killing Smalls!).As for the
consequences of giving up on a baby, the movie hedges, first implying that
they had to content themselves with sending gifts to Nathan Jr. from afar, but
then implying that maybe they did have kids after all.

Subtle: Is the theme interwoven throughout so
that it need not be discussed often?

Do
many small details throughout subtly and/or ironically tie into the thematic
dilemma?

Very much so: when the brothers break
out of jail, it looks like a birth, Smalls has baby shoes on his bike.Ed sings song to baby about dad going
to prison.

Are
one or more objects representing larger ideas exchanged throughout the story,
growing in meaning each time?

The Dr. Spock book, the baby himself,
the guns.

Untidy:
Is the dilemma ultimate irresolvable?

Does
the ending tip towards one side of the thematic dilemma without resolving it
entirely?

Settling for a meager legal life is
better, though disappointing.

Does
the story’s outcome ironically contrast with the initial goal?

Yes, they are pushed apart by stealing
the baby and brought back together by returning it.

In the
end, is the plot not entirely tidy (some small plot threads left unresolved,
some answers left vague)?

It’s fairly tidy, using lots of
voiceover to explain lots of little things, like what happened to the
brother-in-law, etc.

Do the
characters refuse (or fail) to synthesize the meaning of the story, forcing
the audience to do that?

Nope, he does a lot of synthesizing,
at the end and throughout. Even when he doubts his conclusion (about Reagan,
for instance) we don’t.